Phillips v. Target Stores Inc T-43

Filing 52

ORDER granting 43 Motion in Limine; denying 44 Motion to Strike as set forth herein. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/5/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RUBYE PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET STORES, INC.,
T-43 a/k/a TARGET
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-527-D

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion in Limine [Doc.
No. 43] and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages [Doc. No. 44].
Since Plaintiff has not responded to either motion within the prescribed time period,
the motions may be deemed confessed. See LCvR 7.1(g) (“Any motion that is not
opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.”).
Nonetheless, since the issue of punitive damages is fact specific, the Court finds
Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is better suited for
summary judgment consideration and Defendant’s Motion to Strike is denied on that
basis. Moreover, although the Court grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine due to
Plaintiff’s failure to respond, rulings in limine are subject to change as the case
unfolds or at the Court’s discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED and Defendant’s
Motion to Strike is DENIED as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October 2017.

2